Canon 400 2.8 mk I vs mk II

RacingSnake

RacingSnake

Messages
1,650
Name
Gavin
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi guys,
does anyone have any direct comparisons of the IQ & performance of these 2 lenses?
The mk2 is bordering on double the price and I'm wondering if it's worth it.
I've seen the MTF charts, but in the 'real world' are there big steps in image quality?
(I'm not concerned about weight issues).

Cheers in advance!
 
The image quality which the Mk I delivers is absolutely excellent, one of the best lenses you'll find anywhere. The Mk II is a bit better.

The AF speed of the Mk I is really really fast. The Mk II is a bit faster.

In the real world it's unlikely that you'd see any significant benefits in either of these dimensions.

But what you really would appreciate is the weight difference. Canon have put their big white lenses on crash diets. The Mk I is massively heavy, and the Mk II is much lighter. That's what people are paying for.
 
I had this thread on watch.... The mk1 coupled wiht the 1dx gives me superb quality and I was wondering how it could be beaten.. I have absoloutly no intentions of paying out for a mkII because even if it is slightly better.. would I even notice after a few pics.. the difference cant be that great :)
 
KIPAX said:
I have absoloutly no intentions of paying out for a mkII because even if it is slightly better.. would I even notice after a few pics.. the difference cant be that great :)
Click to expand...
Realistically, no, I don't think you would notice any difference in the images. But you would definitely notice the difference in the weight. That's why Canon has been able to get people to pay £9000 for an upgrade.
 
Thanks guys, really interesting.
Looking around I see the mk2 is often double the price and I couldn't see where it was coming from.
Looking at the weight difference it's 5.3kg vs 3.8kg.

The reviews have come out very good on both.

I was thinking of getting the 600/4, but recently I've wondered whether the 400/2.8 + TC would provide more versatility without sacrificing quality - and on that basis would the version 2 handle the tc's better (as they're likely to be connected quite a lot).
 
I carry my gear in a peli (wheels) and always use anythign from 300 upwards on a monopod... so I dont see wight as a problem even at my age :)
 
RacingSnake said:
Hi guys,
does anyone have any direct comparisons of the IQ & performance of these 2 lenses?
The mk2 is bordering on double the price and I'm wondering if it's worth it.
I've seen the MTF charts, but in the 'real world' are there big steps in image quality?
(I'm not concerned about weight issues).

Cheers in advance!
Click to expand...
You thinking of this lens for your wildlife stuff Gavin,or something else?
 
KIPAX said:
I had this thread on watch.... The mk1 coupled wiht the 1dx gives me superb quality and I was wondering how it could be beaten.. I have absoloutly no intentions of paying out for a mkII because even if it is slightly better.. would I even notice after a few pics.. the difference cant be that great :)
Click to expand...

"Would you even notice after a few pics?"

I once worked for an unscrupulous hotel bartender. Behind the bar were ranked bottles of specialist very expensive whiskies. Those on the left really were the expensive whiskies. Those on the right had been refilled with a cheap whisky of the same colour. As part of my bartender's training I had to memorise the faces of the six old men who were the only ones who could tell the difference. They had to be served the real thing in their first glass. "Most people can't tell the difference," I was told. "And even those old bastards who think they're experts can't tell the difference after the first glass."
 
RacingSnake said:
Yes... I am.
The rationale is that I'm spending a lot of time out in low light and I'm just really struggling with the sigmonster in these light levels.
Click to expand...
The 400 2.8 are a big heavy unweildy thing mate, plus is 400 going to be long enough or will it live with a 1.4 tc on it?

Ever thought about the lighter 500 F4 option?
 
fracster said:
The 400 2.8 are a big heavy unweildy thing mate, plus is 400 going to be long enough or will it live with a 1.4 tc on it?
Ever thought about the lighter 500 F4 option?
Click to expand...
I use my 100-400 as my 'walkabout' lens and nearly always have it out at 400.
As for the evening shots, I guess I do typically run up to 800 currently, but I'm just getting so annoyed with the poor light handling - I know this is partly down to the body (using a 7D) - but I plan on upgrading that next year.

If I can get good light from a faster lens into the camera, then the 'crop-ability' of the pictures should also be better... I'd rather crop a clean picture harder than a poor picture less (if that makes sense).

In terms of cost, the 400 2.8 / 500 f4 / 600 f4 are all on a similar playing field, so happy to look at them as alternatives... I just know what I have at the moment isn't cutting the mustard :(
 
I've used both the Mark I and now own the Mark II. IQ is pretty much the same, I would say focus is a touch faster with the Mark II and also better more consistent with TC's. I also use a monopod but walk 5-6 miles on a typical day so the weight saving is really really noticeable. The weight of the original is ok to handle but getting from A to B just was something I got tired of quite quickly. The Mark II is pretty much same weight at the 500mm F4 Mark I. It's a nice bit of kit, no doubt about it. But the cost premium is pretty bonkers and hard to justify if your style of shooting is static. My 2p anyway :)
 
I use to use the Nikon 400mm f/2.8 (equivalent version to the Canon MK1) and switched to a Canon 500mm f/4L simply due to it being lighter for travelling for airline carry on, as the 400mm f/2.8 was about 53% of my carry on allowance! I could happily handhold the 400mm all day long but didn't like the fact of using the 1.4x converter all the time on it, which with the airline carry on the reason I got rid of it for the 500mm. Looking back at lightroom I took about 20% of images without the converter on for the wildlife! Don't get me wrong it was a superb lens I would say with no TC is beats the 500mm easily but what good is that when you are using the Converter all day long? Personally I would get something that you don't need to add a converter too. But then again saying that it still is a very very sharp combo, as good as my 500mm I would say...At the end of the day get what will suit you best and whatever you get you will be more than happy with I'm sure :)
 
400mm mk2 is a lovely lens and the bulk is not that bad considering the diet it has been on. I'm more than happy using it with the mk3 1.4tc which makes it a more versatile low light option than the 500mm.

I had no problem tracking this at 500+mph with the 1.4tc fitted (560mm F/4) :

https://flic.kr/p/xwnQaD
 
Last edited:
I have used the Canon EF 400mm F2.8L IS USM Mark 1 version before. It is really heavy although the image quality is outstanding. I used a 1.4 TC occasionally and found that image quality is affected. Then I switched to a Canon 500mm F4L IS USM Mark 1. The reduction in weight is significant and I can hand hold it for longer period of time. I also appreciate the increase in focal length and do not feel in anyway that the F4 aperture is restricting. The image quality from the 500mm is also outstanding and on par with the 400mm.

I guess the 400mm F2.8 is more for shooting sports. Lots of photographers at sporting events use it. But for wildlife or birding, I think the 500mm F4 is the most suitable. The 600mm F4 lens is quite heavy and may not be suitable.

cheers
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top